The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 August 7. The result of the deletion review was restored and relisted at CFD 2014 August 12. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The result of the discussion was: delete without prejudice to creating a list article. Although there is no consensus, the arguments for deletion included strong policy reasons, as the articles are biographies including living people, and inclusion of some of the dead people was considered debatable. A list article could be a great deal more informative, with citations for inclusion, and broken down perhaps by occupation including clergy, or by time period, or in some cases both (overlapping). Here is a link to the diffs to facilitate compilation of a list from the former category members. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• review Category:LGBT Roman Catholics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This whole category listing is based mostly on speculation; nearly everyone in this listing did not identify personally as LGBT in their lifetime, and so there are a lot of liberties being taken in retroactively ascribing sexual identities to them that may not have even existed in the same context as they do in the modern era. Many of the people listed under this category are merely speculated to have been LGBT due to unpublished letters found centuries after their deaths. This whole page seems to follow that vein of listing people based on mere speculations or rumours, and as such I ask for its review Solntsa90 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I took a random sample of (only) three articles, in all three articles the persons were described as openly LGBT. This sample result seems to be enough to conclude that this discussion has to take place on an article-by-article basis, instead of for the category as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole category is extremely problematic. Pope Benedict IX is not an "LGBT" Catholic, neither is Ludwig II of Bavaria; However, I do see the usage of it's inclusion. Therefore, I ask that other editors may review it for quality control, as there seems to be more than a few people under the listings who shouldn't be listed under the category due to mere speculation without any concrete confirmation. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deletion, I ask that other editors look at this category for the possibility of review. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we rather agree that you first have a review yourself? If you have any questions on how to, don't hesitate to discuss further on my talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want more than just your opinion. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's probably not going to work. As you apparently withdraw your nomination to delete, it's unlikely that people here will check this out any further. If you feel the category is polluted (which may well be the case) then it is your own responsibility to undertake action against wrongly-classified articles. I've been in the same situation myself too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another highly misued category that attracts revisionist works that do not bear in mind the culture of the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I support this category and I'm happy to review. There is no lack of homosexual Roman Catholics throughout history. Not necessarily based on just rumour (always a tactic to edit out LGBT history). I've no idea what a previous editor means by "culture" so can't respond on that point. The term is a modern term - "gay" - but homosexuality is not a modern phenomenon and this is what I think the category is after. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identifying as a separate group based on sexuality is a modern phenomenon, and it is arbitrary and ahistorical to try and class people in the past in this way. To add to this, much of the attempted past history is not only based on rumor but 100% lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge the catregory of any article where the person doers not self-identify as LGBT, if alive, or where this is not explicitly mentioned in the article. It is far too easy to accuse a religious person of being gay when they are in fact celebate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Solntsa90, John Pack Lambert, and Peterkingiron for reasons stated. (I suppose Roman Catholic status would be self-identified? nominal?, convenient?, lapsed?, devout?) This is too much like trying to diagnose King Saul, Alexander or Bonaparte, for possible medical or psychological conditions hundreds of years after the fact. While it's entertaining, its seems quite speculative. Also, sources often cannot be verified or checked for political or other bias. (Henry IV of Portugal started the rumor of his impotence himself in order to justify an annulment. No one will ever know for sure whether he was or he wasn't). Mannanan51 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at about three dozen entries in this category and it is not entirely clear to me what warrants someone's inclusion therein: Josephine Baker was given a Roman Catholic funeral- which may have been someone else's decision; one the other hand, Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești "was no longer a practicing Catholic by the time of his death". There seem to be a number of other entries where the articles themselves mention that information may be unclear or dubious, but the Category talk page is no doubt a better place for that. The only thing I can find that most of these people have in common is that religion didn't seem to play a particularly significant part. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Catholics make a unique group of Christians (there is a LGBT Christian category) and there is a rising number of visibility within the Catholic faith of openly LGBT people. The category should remain for those who at least, in the modern world, openly identify as both LGBT & Catholic (and yes, there are many notable people who do). I would also argue that LGBT history is often written out, so this article is important in a historical context in categorizing historical figures who had an influence on LGBT history. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Compositions by John Philip Sousa. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cfd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one song in category, and unlikely to be more, since it is a very uncommon intersection. pbp 17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - part of Category:Ballets by composer. Oculi (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good enough reason for keeping a one entry category. The same meaning can be conveyed on the one page with Category:Compositions by John Philip Sousa] and Category:Ballets. If there were 6-7 ballets to Sousa music, you might have a point. Right now, it's just overkill. pbp 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballets is subcategorised in various ways, one of which is 'by composer', the composer being a defining characteristic of a ballet. The number of entries is irrelevant. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. If a category is only ever going to have 5 or less entries and no subcategories, it probably shouldn't be a category. As for the defining characteristic argument, we have enough existing categories to make it clear that this ONE entry is a ballet with music by Sousa. pbp 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If Sousa really was the composer, the argument would work. However, Sousa is not the composer. It is an arrangement based on his work, created 26 years after his death. It is not one of his compositions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-- The ballet appears to be danced to a medley of Sousa marches. Yes he did not compose it, but there are a number of modern ballets that have recycled music from the past. However this is a single item category and likely to remain such indefiniately. I would prefer to see it merged somehow rather than deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:European Court of Justice to Category:Court of Justice of the European Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Court of Justice of the European Union consists of 3 courts: i) The Court of Justice (or: European Court of Justice). ii) The General Court iii) The Civil Service Tribunal. The European Court of Justice is clearly the most relevant of those three encyclopaedically, but the category spans all three groups (e.g. sub cat category:European Union case law is about the 3 courts, General Court (European Union). Now we could make a "parent cat" Court of Justice of the European Union, and move some of those articles there; and make the present cat Category:European Court of Justice a sub cat of that cat, but I think it is better to keep it all together in one cat covering it all, rather than a main cat with a few articles, with 1 very heavy sub cat..... L.tak (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I've wondered about this myself and have been at a bit of a loss of what to do about it. I think what the nominator proposes is a good idea. Later it could be considered if we want to re-create Category:European Court of Justice as a subcategory, but for now I think we should try what the nominator proposes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename will clarify structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It probably would have been different if the previous decision had included the word "region", i.e. "in the West Coast region"; but "on the West Coast" (without "region") has strong local support. – Fayenatic London 09:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players on the West Coast, New Zealand by club to Category:Rugby league players in the West Coast, New Zealand by club

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Rugby league players in New Zealand by club is "Rugby league players in DISTIRCT by club" and this category should follow that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was just discussed here. There was no consensus as to whether the categories should use "in" or "on" the West Coast, so the pre-existing format for each category was maintained. I would argue that this should indeed be "in" to conform to the convention, but it may be premature to bring this up again so soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Well this wasn't really discussed in that nomination, and it was more about whether West Coast, New Zealand is ambiguous or not. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Wasn't really discussed? The majority of the comments in the discussion was about the "in vs. on" issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Category:West Coast Region. Nurg (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not a local (I live on the East coast, as it were), but "in the West Coast" sounds entirely wrong to me. Schwede66 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (since the discussion seems to be proceeding again) per nom for consistency and the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Category:West Coast Region. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in New Zealand English things are on the coast in them (unless buried in the sand dunes). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In any case, a comma (after "New Zealand") is missing per Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, section "Common mistakes to fix", subsection "Punctuation". HandsomeFella (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus as above. – Fayenatic London 09:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rugby league on the West Coast, New Zealand to Category:Rugby league in the West Coast, New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Rugby league in New Zealand by district is "Rugby league in DISTRICT", and this category should follow that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was just discussed here. There was no consensus as to whether the categories should use "in" or "on" the West Coast, so the pre-existing format for each category was maintained. I would argue that this should indeed be "in" to conform to the convention, but it may be premature to bring this up again so soon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Well this wasn't really discussed in that nomination, and it was more about whether West Coast, New Zealand is ambiguous or not. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Wasn't really discussed? The majority of the comments in the discussion was about the "in vs. on" issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Category:West Coast Region. (Can we combine this proposal with the closely-related one above to avoid duplicating all our comments?) Nurg (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (since the discussion seems to be proceeding again) per nom for consistency and the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 22#Category:West Coast Region. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fußball-Bayernliga navigational boxes to Category:Bayernliga navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring in line with parent article Bayernliga.Calistemon (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. General English usage is that streets are urban places lined with buildings, whereas roads include highways, so there is no inconsistency with the parent category. – Fayenatic London 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia to Category:Streets in Perth central business district, Western Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the scope stated in the text of that category, ie limited to the CBD. This would also help avoid confusion with the similarly named Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia. (Why is one "streets" and one "roads"? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - See also WT:WikiProject Australian Roads#Streets vs Roads
• Comment: I would suggest waiting on the result on the WT:AURD discussion linked above, rather than having parallel discussions here and there, so that perhaps we might get some consistency across the various subcategories in the Roads in Australia category tree. In principle, though, "Perth, Western Australia" does require further disambiguation if the intended scope is the CBD, rather than the entire metropolitan region. - Evad37 [talk] 05:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would come up with a all-encompassing plan at WT:AURD for relevant category naming, and then rename Streets in Perth, Western Australia (if appropriate) according to that plan. However, as you pointed out "there isn't really an easy solution" so it might take some time to get a result at WT:AURD. I know there is no deadline, but I suggest that there would be no harm in renaming Streets in Perth, WA (to more accurately reflect its contents) sooner, even if we later change its name again (or merge/delete/whatever it) as a consequence of the WT:AURD discussion. If fact, renaming Streets in Perth, WA to more accurately reflect its contents may help the WT:AURD discussion (if only slightly) by making it just a little bit clearer what the scope of the current categories are. So far as I know renaming a category results in a bot changing all the references, so the scope for human error with the extra edits is negligible. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.